Scan barcode
latterature's review
3.0
A comprehensive examination of the seminal text of Western literature. Would it be harsh to suggest too comprehensive?
colin_cox's review
4.0
Since graduate school, I have continued to read Early Modern and English Renaissance scholarship. Admittedly, I do so in fits and starts, but textual scholarship, loosely understood as the study of book and manuscript production, has become a rewarding preoccupation. Emma Smith's The Making of Shakespeare's First Folio is a smart introduction to this field of scholarship and successfully articulates the importance of marginal figures who meaningfully assisted in the production of one of the most valuable books in the English canon. That is to say, Shakespeare matters, but so do the actors, writers, editors, printers, typesetters, and merchants who contributed to the production of a wildly complex piece of literature. Smith's argument mirrors this scholarly injunction to locate or situate Shakespeare within a complex network of players, both artistic and commercial. She writes, "In this book, I argue instead that the First Folio is the product of recoverable human, technological and commercial enterprise, and that Shakespeare himself is only one agent in its preparation and realisation. This doesn't diminish the extraordinary literary achievement contained there, but it does apportion credit more widely" (3). There are two key features to this statement that encapsulate what scholarship about the First Folio attempts to accomplish. The notion that non-Shakespeare contributions are "recoverable" is essential because it antagonizes the assumption that any single individual can produce a text of such size and technical difficulty. However, Shakespeare's contributions should not be overlooked, which explains why Smith references Shakespeare's "literary achievement." This balance or negotiation represents what textual scholarship that does not wish to appear as cold and clinical as stalwart new historicism might look like (not that anyone, as I understand it, continues to practice this brand of new historicism or any new historicism for that matter).
With that said, the book at times is a mixed bag. The first two and final two chapters on the plays, Shakespeare's reputation during his lifetime, printing and publishing practices, and "Early Readers," are fascinating and thought-provoking. Chapter 3, on the contrary, feels superfluous, which is upsetting since it is the longest chapter in this surprisingly thin volume. So read Smith's book if the subject matter is of interest, but do so with the understanding that it is more of an overview than a thoroughly-researched piece of new textual scholarship.
With that said, the book at times is a mixed bag. The first two and final two chapters on the plays, Shakespeare's reputation during his lifetime, printing and publishing practices, and "Early Readers," are fascinating and thought-provoking. Chapter 3, on the contrary, feels superfluous, which is upsetting since it is the longest chapter in this surprisingly thin volume. So read Smith's book if the subject matter is of interest, but do so with the understanding that it is more of an overview than a thoroughly-researched piece of new textual scholarship.
rukistarsailor's review
4.0
The Making of Shakespeare's First Folio is the second book I've read by Emma Smith. Though this book wasn't as thrilling as This Is Shakespeare, I still learned a great deal about the printing process in the early modern period and how that process affects how we see William Shakespeare today.
mxd's review
4.0
The edition of the First Folio I've seen has always left me in awe, because it feels like Shakespeare could have disappeared into obscurity so easily were it not for the existence of all his works bound together, and those people who would later take inspiration from him and bring him back into the spotlight in a way he wouldn't have been even in his own time (Smith comments on how his death was barely commented on, in comparison to Burbage who acted in his plays and was eulogised by many).
What Emma Smith's book does is, it takes us through all the layers of what went into the creation of the First Folio. How were the plays collected? Who financed the folio? Why use the folio format? What was left out and why? Who else might have had a hand in writing some of the plays? What was the printing process like, and how did it contribute to some of the oddities in the editions of the First Folio? Many many questions addressed, and many personalities mentioned along the way.
If you're studying Shakespeare, or interested in rare books, this is a must read. Chock full of information and a fairly digestible read.
What Emma Smith's book does is, it takes us through all the layers of what went into the creation of the First Folio. How were the plays collected? Who financed the folio? Why use the folio format? What was left out and why? Who else might have had a hand in writing some of the plays? What was the printing process like, and how did it contribute to some of the oddities in the editions of the First Folio? Many many questions addressed, and many personalities mentioned along the way.
If you're studying Shakespeare, or interested in rare books, this is a must read. Chock full of information and a fairly digestible read.
More...